8 ms·

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space fo

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S.?

quanticle 7y ago
I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific policies proactively so that it doesn't find itself in the same position it found itself in 2016, as it reacted to candidates and third parties using the platform in ways that hadn't been anticipated. If Bosworth is calling for an "internal debate over whether we should have a free and fair election in the U.S.", it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms, radio and television studios all across the country. Every new media offends the old. Newspapers were offended by radio. Radio was offended by television. Now they're all ganging up on Facebook. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10111288357877121 https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10111288357877121
- iso1824 7y ago
  Newspapers, Radio, and Television all have a named editor who is responsible for output. Facebook doesn't.
  - cbhl 7y ago
    Facebook, at one point, did curate the news that was shown in the News Feed. It stopped doing so after one side complained.
  - elpool2 7y ago
    Why does it matter if they have an editor?
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      I think there's a legal distinction. Just like phone companies don't have a responsibility to censor misinformation being spread over the phone.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  > it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms I'm going to have to contradict you there. Anyone who was following the 2016 Russian Interference campaign, and related news stories, would know that Facebook used to pay people to moderate news stories, perhaps in a manner that was like a news room... But then they fired those people because they were not promoting conspiracy theory news stories, and so conservatives claimed FB news was "biased". This essentially created the environment where no one at FB was willing to fact check for fear of losing their jobs. When you hear about FB saying they will not fact check political content, it's specifically because if they did, they'd have no choice but to point out all the lies and inaccuracies in Trump's statements. So instead, they simply refuse to touch any of it, which leaves the door wide open to political actors to spread any disinformation they want. A few related stories, for the interested: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-... [2] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/facebook-will-reintroduce-human-editors-to-curate-news.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/facebook-will-reintro... As the [2] reference says, unless FB has suddenly grown a backbone with regards to standing up for truth over dollars, then any new effort will fail in the same way it did last time. Facebook has never been able to demonstrably prove it cares about election meddling, and you shouldn't believe empty words in their press releases.
  - quanticle 7y ago
    > As the [2] reference says, unless FB has suddenly grown a backbone with regards for truth over dollars, then any new effort will fail in the same way it did last time I find it somewhat sanctimonious for the traditional news media to be calling out Facebook for favoring dollars over truth when they themselves were just as key as Facebook was to normalizing and publicizing Trump. CNN executives made a conscious decision to give Trump lots of coverage, in an effort to compete with Fox News. They too presented Trump's views as being just as legitimate and valid as the views of those opposing him.
- kichik 7y ago
  Other countries have rules about political advertisement especially before elections. Those include budget limits, content, attribution, locations, and more. It's weird to think the rules are so lax here.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    An advertising ban ahead of an election feels like a logical solution, or at least a simple-to-understand one. People would try and circumvent it still but the burden would be on the ad vendors to not be liable for a violation.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      And if they don't want to risk liability, they always have the option to not show any ads to the relevant population ahead of an election.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    The difference is that the U.S. has this pesky thing called the First Amendment that makes restricting political speech difficult.
    - taurath 7y ago
      But don't forget, money is speech, and corporations are people. All of which is absolutely not in the first amendment.
      - methodin 7y ago
        Why is it that free speech extends to organizations? I'm all for free speech but outside of individuals and nonprofits I'm struggling to think of good reason it should extend to corporate entities.
        taurath 7y ago
        I can’t for the life of me figure it out.
- hcnews 7y ago
  Wow, that post is pretty deluded. To paraphrase crudely, he is doing mental gymnastics to justify and invest in his/facebook's current position. An easy example of this is: > If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position. Sure, if you want to make an informed choice, go for it. Nothing prevents a person from buying and consuming 10lbs of sugar everyday. However, the obvious problem which a lot of people have been focussed on is how do we prevent unhealthy amounts of sugar from being present in all food. All of this sidestepping from Facebook and its execs reminds me of tactics used by Trump (and Republicans).
- mistermann 7y ago
  >>> Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. >> Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S.? > I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific policies proactively so that it doesn't find itself in the same position it found itself in 2016, as it reacted to candidates and third parties using the platform in ways that hadn't been anticipated. > If Bosworth is calling for an "internal debate over whether we should have a free and fair election in the U.S.", it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms, radio and television studios all across the country. This seems a bit illogical to me. Facebook is a platform that enables sophisticated communication, for anyone who chooses to to use it. I don't see how the opinion that Trump "got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser" in any way implies that the election wasn't either free or fair. Let's rewind to 2008: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm... >>> Like a lot of Web innovators, the Obama campaign did not invent anything completely new. Instead, by bolting together social networking applications under the banner of a movement, they created an unforeseen force to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote that helped them topple the Clinton machine and then John McCain and the Republicans. >>> As a result, when he arrives at 1600 Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will have not just a political base, but a database, millions of names of supporters who can be engaged almost instantly. And there’s every reason to believe that he will use the network not just to campaign, but to govern. His e-mail message to supporters on Tuesday night included the line, “We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I’ll be in touch soon about what comes next.” The incoming administration is already open for business on the Web at Change.gov, a digital gateway for the transition. >>> The Bush campaign arrived at the White House with a conviction that it would continue a conservative revolution with the help of Karl Rove’s voter lists, phone banks and direct mail. But those tools were crude and expensive compared with what the Obama camp is bringing to the Oval Office. Obama seems to have had an advantage in 2008 - was that "unfair"? If the capabilities within the Facebook platform, that are available to everyone, are deemed to be harmful to democracy, then so be it, but claims that it is unfair, or should somehow have no effect, seem way off the mark to me.
svachalek 7y ago
I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m not so sure about #3.
- asaramis 7y ago
  The other two major parts of this: Facebook's ad model is built to reward "virality" - meaning being over the top and salacious means lower costs. Even Boz acknowledges that was part of the Trump team's genius - they used the platform, as it was built, perfectly. The Democrats naturally have equal access to this platform, so I don't think its as much a left-right thing, vs a crazy-calm divide. The other thing is just disinformation / identity verification - making sure all advertisers are who they say they are (and you don't get russians posing as black lives matter, etc.)
- Seenso 7y ago
  > 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. > Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m not so sure about #3. I think you overstate #3 a little bit. It could have been happening without Facebook, but at a lower scale and not effectively enough to matter. I think there's also a #4: 4. Facebook ad-targeting allows the influence to be covert, because watchdog group members are probably not part of the targeted demographics.
  - sp332 7y ago
    4 isn't right (anymore) because they made all political ads available to anyone who wants to see them. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307?id=288762101909005 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307?id=2...
    - Seenso 7y ago
manfredo 7y ago
There are a significant number of tech workers I know that do genuinely believe that companies should leverage their technology to benefit the candidates that they feel would be better for the country, and do things like ban Trump's social media accounts. This is what Bosworth was addressing: > But he maintained that the company should not change its policies on political advertising, saying that doing so in order to avert a victory by Mr. Trump would be a misuse of power, comparing it to a scene from “The Lord of the Rings.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-andrew-bosworth-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-andre...
- Marsymars 7y ago
  Banning Trump's social media accounts wouldn't require bias against him, it would simply require him to stop receiving special exemption from platform rules.
  - chc 7y ago
    People are downvoting this, but it's just a matter of fact. Jack Dorsey has repeatedly said that the "newsworthiness" of Trump's tweets outweighs the ordinary standards of propriety that get applied to other people's tweets. Somebody asked Jack point blank whether Twitter would take action if Trump made a tweet explicitly asking his followers to murder a journalist, and Jack's response was, "We'd certainly talk about it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/would-calling-murder-get-trump-banned-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-wont-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/would-calli...)
    - lol2143651 7y ago
      Twitter didn't ban accounts calling for the murder of the Covington kids. There clearly are no standards for you to hide behind.
  - gjs278 7y ago
    maybe those rules shouldn’t apply to anyone

quanticle 7y ago

I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific policies proactively so that it doesn't find itself in the same position it found itself in 2016, as it reacted to candidates and third parties using the platform in ways that hadn't been anticipated. If Bosworth is calling for an "internal debate over whether we should have a free and fair election in the U.S.", it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms, radio and television studios all across the country. Every new media offends the old. Newspapers were offended by radio. Radio was offended by television. Now they're all ganging up on Facebook. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10111288357877121 https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10111288357877121

iso1824 7y ago
Newspapers, Radio, and Television all have a named editor who is responsible for output. Facebook doesn't.
- cbhl 7y ago
  Facebook, at one point, did curate the news that was shown in the News Feed. It stopped doing so after one side complained.
- elpool2 7y ago
  Why does it matter if they have an editor?
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    I think there's a legal distinction. Just like phone companies don't have a responsibility to censor misinformation being spread over the phone.
ggggtez 7y ago
> it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms I'm going to have to contradict you there. Anyone who was following the 2016 Russian Interference campaign, and related news stories, would know that Facebook used to pay people to moderate news stories, perhaps in a manner that was like a news room... But then they fired those people because they were not promoting conspiracy theory news stories, and so conservatives claimed FB news was "biased". This essentially created the environment where no one at FB was willing to fact check for fear of losing their jobs. When you hear about FB saying they will not fact check political content, it's specifically because if they did, they'd have no choice but to point out all the lies and inaccuracies in Trump's statements. So instead, they simply refuse to touch any of it, which leaves the door wide open to political actors to spread any disinformation they want. A few related stories, for the interested: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-... [2] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/facebook-will-reintroduce-human-editors-to-curate-news.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/facebook-will-reintro... As the [2] reference says, unless FB has suddenly grown a backbone with regards to standing up for truth over dollars, then any new effort will fail in the same way it did last time. Facebook has never been able to demonstrably prove it cares about election meddling, and you shouldn't believe empty words in their press releases.
- quanticle 7y ago
  > As the [2] reference says, unless FB has suddenly grown a backbone with regards for truth over dollars, then any new effort will fail in the same way it did last time I find it somewhat sanctimonious for the traditional news media to be calling out Facebook for favoring dollars over truth when they themselves were just as key as Facebook was to normalizing and publicizing Trump. CNN executives made a conscious decision to give Trump lots of coverage, in an effort to compete with Fox News. They too presented Trump's views as being just as legitimate and valid as the views of those opposing him.
kichik 7y ago
Other countries have rules about political advertisement especially before elections. Those include budget limits, content, attribution, locations, and more. It's weird to think the rules are so lax here.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  An advertising ban ahead of an election feels like a logical solution, or at least a simple-to-understand one. People would try and circumvent it still but the burden would be on the ad vendors to not be liable for a violation.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    And if they don't want to risk liability, they always have the option to not show any ads to the relevant population ahead of an election.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The difference is that the U.S. has this pesky thing called the First Amendment that makes restricting political speech difficult.
  - taurath 7y ago
    But don't forget, money is speech, and corporations are people. All of which is absolutely not in the first amendment.
    - methodin 7y ago
      Why is it that free speech extends to organizations? I'm all for free speech but outside of individuals and nonprofits I'm struggling to think of good reason it should extend to corporate entities.
      - taurath 7y ago
        I can’t for the life of me figure it out.
hcnews 7y ago
Wow, that post is pretty deluded. To paraphrase crudely, he is doing mental gymnastics to justify and invest in his/facebook's current position. An easy example of this is: > If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position. Sure, if you want to make an informed choice, go for it. Nothing prevents a person from buying and consuming 10lbs of sugar everyday. However, the obvious problem which a lot of people have been focussed on is how do we prevent unhealthy amounts of sugar from being present in all food. All of this sidestepping from Facebook and its execs reminds me of tactics used by Trump (and Republicans).
mistermann 7y ago
>>> Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. >> Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S.? > I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific policies proactively so that it doesn't find itself in the same position it found itself in 2016, as it reacted to candidates and third parties using the platform in ways that hadn't been anticipated. > If Bosworth is calling for an "internal debate over whether we should have a free and fair election in the U.S.", it's exactly the same sort of debate that is occurring in newsrooms, radio and television studios all across the country. This seems a bit illogical to me. Facebook is a platform that enables sophisticated communication, for anyone who chooses to to use it. I don't see how the opinion that Trump "got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser" in any way implies that the election wasn't either free or fair. Let's rewind to 2008: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm... >>> Like a lot of Web innovators, the Obama campaign did not invent anything completely new. Instead, by bolting together social networking applications under the banner of a movement, they created an unforeseen force to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote that helped them topple the Clinton machine and then John McCain and the Republicans. >>> As a result, when he arrives at 1600 Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will have not just a political base, but a database, millions of names of supporters who can be engaged almost instantly. And there’s every reason to believe that he will use the network not just to campaign, but to govern. His e-mail message to supporters on Tuesday night included the line, “We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I’ll be in touch soon about what comes next.” The incoming administration is already open for business on the Web at Change.gov, a digital gateway for the transition. >>> The Bush campaign arrived at the White House with a conviction that it would continue a conservative revolution with the help of Karl Rove’s voter lists, phone banks and direct mail. But those tools were crude and expensive compared with what the Obama camp is bringing to the Oval Office. Obama seems to have had an advantage in 2008 - was that "unfair"? If the capabilities within the Facebook platform, that are available to everyone, are deemed to be harmful to democracy, then so be it, but claims that it is unfair, or should somehow have no effect, seem way off the mark to me.

svachalek 7y ago

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m not so sure about #3.

asaramis 7y ago
The other two major parts of this: Facebook's ad model is built to reward "virality" - meaning being over the top and salacious means lower costs. Even Boz acknowledges that was part of the Trump team's genius - they used the platform, as it was built, perfectly. The Democrats naturally have equal access to this platform, so I don't think its as much a left-right thing, vs a crazy-calm divide. The other thing is just disinformation / identity verification - making sure all advertisers are who they say they are (and you don't get russians posing as black lives matter, etc.)
Seenso 7y ago
> 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. > Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m not so sure about #3. I think you overstate #3 a little bit. It could have been happening without Facebook, but at a lower scale and not effectively enough to matter. I think there's also a #4: 4. Facebook ad-targeting allows the influence to be covert, because watchdog group members are probably not part of the targeted demographics.
- sp332 7y ago
  4 isn't right (anymore) because they made all political ads available to anyone who wants to see them. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307?id=288762101909005 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307?id=2...
  - Seenso 7y ago

manfredo 7y ago

There are a significant number of tech workers I know that do genuinely believe that companies should leverage their technology to benefit the candidates that they feel would be better for the country, and do things like ban Trump's social media accounts. This is what Bosworth was addressing: > But he maintained that the company should not change its policies on political advertising, saying that doing so in order to avert a victory by Mr. Trump would be a misuse of power, comparing it to a scene from “The Lord of the Rings.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-andrew-bosworth-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-andre...

Marsymars 7y ago
Banning Trump's social media accounts wouldn't require bias against him, it would simply require him to stop receiving special exemption from platform rules.
- chc 7y ago
  People are downvoting this, but it's just a matter of fact. Jack Dorsey has repeatedly said that the "newsworthiness" of Trump's tweets outweighs the ordinary standards of propriety that get applied to other people's tweets. Somebody asked Jack point blank whether Twitter would take action if Trump made a tweet explicitly asking his followers to murder a journalist, and Jack's response was, "We'd certainly talk about it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/would-calling-murder-get-trump-banned-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-wont-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/would-calli...)
  - lol2143651 7y ago
    Twitter didn't ban accounts calling for the murder of the Covington kids. There clearly are no standards for you to hide behind.
- gjs278 7y ago
  maybe those rules shouldn’t apply to anyone